Nikos Christodoulides is the first President of the Republic of Cyprus to belong to the so-called “generation of the invasion”—the generation that has known Cyprus as divided and partially occupied. It wouldn’t be accurate to say that his election called him to “swim in deep waters without knowing how to swim.” He had a long tenure in the diplomatic service and a political career as government spokesperson and Foreign Minister in the Anastasiades administration.

Today, with 37% of Cyprus’ territory under occupation for 50 years and negotiations stalled since 2017, he is seeking ways to break the Cyprus issue out of its deadlock. Despite the Turkish side’s reluctance to negotiate, he continues to hope that a solution is still achievable with greater involvement from the EU. He makes it clear that the Greek side will not, under any circumstances, discuss a two-state solution, which would mean recognizing the pseudo-state and definitively dividing Cyprus. As he says, “there is no Plan B.”

While all efforts are focused on political consensus, he does not overlook the need for strengthening Cyprus’ defense, although—for obvious reasons—he does not specify how this is achieved or what the plans for acquiring new weapons systems entail.

He emphatically states that those calling for the revival of the Single Defense Doctrine should know that the defense cooperation between Greece and Cyprus is more advanced than it was in the past.

“Two states? Not a chance”

MANOLIS KALATZIS: Mr. President, when you were born, 50 years had passed since the Asia Minor Disaster, which is the same amount of time that has passed since the 1974 invasion of Cyprus. Is there anything that gives you hope that another 50 years won’t pass with people still discussing the Cyprus issue? After all, no one discusses the Asia Minor issue today.

NIKOS CHRISTODOULIDES: You are absolutely right. I am the first President of the Republic born shortly before the invasion (December 1973) and grew up in an occupied homeland. It is clear that the passage of time unfortunately solidifies faits accomplis, creates new ones, and makes the prospect of resolving the Cyprus issue even more difficult. The current situation cannot be the future of Cyprus, nor does it secure the future of Cypriot Hellenism. That is why I am focusing all my efforts on restarting the talks, believing that an approach that takes into account and emphasizes the geopolitical dimension of the Cyprus issue can lead us to a mutually acceptable solution.

M.K.: I know you will dutifully tell me that you believe a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation solution is still achievable. However, the solution requires two parties, like in a tango. The Greek Cypriot side alone cannot impose it. Do you believe there is room for further compromises from the Greek Cypriot side to persuade the Turkish side?

N.C.: Your question is well-placed. Let me start by clarifying that there is no question of changing the basis for the Cyprus solution. But because I know very well the points of disagreement between the two sides, I want to tell you that I have a strong belief, an absolute certainty that the EU can provide solutions to all the issues where there are differing opinions between the two sides. Solutions that benefit both Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots and Turkey itself. I believe that, yes, within the EU a solution is achievable. I understand the difficulties we face at this time due to Turkey’s refusal to negotiate, but I will not relinquish the mandate to seek a solution to the Cyprus issue given to me by the Cypriot people, precisely because I believe it is an achievable goal. That is why, from the day I took office, I have made tremendous efforts to reactivate the UN Secretary-General and, as a result of our initiatives with the UN, the EU, Germany, and the US, we managed to start a new effort with the appointment of the UN Secretary-General’s personal envoy. An effort that cannot deviate from the resolutions of the international organization and cannot ignore the negotiation process that has taken place over the years, as well as the fact that the Republic of Cyprus is an EU member state and will continue to be so after a potential solution to the Cyprus issue.

M.K.: We believed that EU membership would act as a catalyst for a solution. We believed it again with the discovery of natural gas deposits and repeat it with the strengthening of our relations with the US, starting a strategic dialogue. Have our estimates been wrong so many times?

N.C.: It is not a matter of whether our estimates or predictions were wrong. We live in a changing international environment that affects us and is not determined by us. We must be able to understand it correctly and use it accordingly. What matters is adapting to the international environment and utilizing the added value that the Republic of Cyprus can offer as part of solving challenges either in the region or at the European level. Indeed, our EU membership has had a positive effect on the Cyprus process regarding many important solution parameters, and we observed this in the convergences achieved during the last negotiation process in Crans-Montana in 2017. As for strengthening our relations with the US and starting a strategic dialogue, it is a geopolitical development and a significant success of the Republic of Cyprus that can also be used in efforts to restart negotiations and for their successful conclusion.

M.K.: If the Cyprus issue is not resolved, is there an alternative plan?

N.C.: I have repeatedly said that there is no alternative plan. The current situation cannot be the future of Cyprus. There is no Plan B regarding the form of the Cyprus solution. Our goal is one: a solution within the UN framework according to the relevant Security Council resolutions and the accumulated results of the negotiations so far, as well as the EU acquis. This is our position, and we do not discuss a two-state solution under any circumstances. That is why I will use every opening, every opportunity, every possibility, despite the difficulties and challenges, to reverse the occupation’s facts and reunite our homeland within a sustainable and functional solution.

“NATO Membership Unfeasible”

M.K.: Does the Republic of Cyprus intend to apply for NATO membership, even for pressure tactics, knowing there will be a Turkish veto?

N.C.: Cyprus’ NATO membership would have been a natural development in 1960, considering the era’s context and the fact that the three guarantor powers were NATO members. Cyprus did not become a member in 1960 due to one of the guarantor powers, and I won’t elaborate further on that today. Given the current circumstances and Turkey’s long-standing position as a NATO member, such an option is not feasible. Cyprus has had a clear Western orientation since its EU accession in 2004, and all our actions are within this framework, which I believe serves the interests of the Republic of Cyprus. Hence, the recent announcements about strategic dialogue with the US—a dialogue Washington typically maintains with NATO countries. When the conditions for our membership are met, it is something we will seriously consider. We want our actions to have results and not be for publicity purposes.

“Joint Defense Planning with Greece”

M.K.: Is there a plan to modernize the National Guard with new Western-origin weapons systems since the Russian market is closed to us due to sanctions? How helpful is the lifting of the US embargo?

N.C.: Firstly, let me remind you that one of the issues we resolved as a government—a long-standing problem—was the upgrading of the National Guard’s contract soldiers. This falls within the framework of strengthening the Republic of Cyprus’ deterrent power. Beyond that, for reasons I am sure you understand, I will not publicly discuss any armament plans of the Republic of Cyprus. All I can say is that yes, there are specific plans being implemented.

M.K.: Although the answer is known, the question is repeatedly raised by the public. I won’t refer to the Single Defense Doctrine with Greece but to whether there is joint defense planning and actions.

N.C.: I can confidently tell you, as I know from my position as President of the Republic of Cyprus, that the defense cooperation between Cyprus and Greece is significantly more enhanced than during the period of the Single Defense Doctrine.

Cyprus Issue and Greek-Turkish Relations

M.K.: Traditionally, the relations between Athens and Nicosia are excellent, even during periods of friction. Doesn’t the Greek-Turkish dialogue for resolving Aegean issues bother you when the Cyprus issue has been in a stalemate since 2017?

N.C.: Progress in Greek-Turkish relations can only positively impact the Cyprus issue. After all, there cannot be full normalization of Greek-Turkish relations without resolving the Cyprus issue. I am encouraged by the fact that during the recent meeting between the Greek Prime Minister and the Turkish President in the US, Mr. Mitsotakis once again raised the need to restart talks and make progress on the Cyprus issue in relation to Greek-Turkish relations. Regarding Athens-Nicosia relations, there is currently an excellent relationship of cooperation and absolute honesty between the Greek Prime Minister and me. There may be or could be issues where we have different views or approaches, but we discuss them openly and honestly, leading to common approaches and actions through dialogue.

M.K.: What have the trilateral meetings, mainly with Israel and Egypt, yielded beyond good relations?

N.C.: The trilateral collaborations with Israel, Egypt, and other countries in the region have yielded multiple and multi-level benefits for the Republic of Cyprus, the EU, security, and stability. Firstly, let me mention the legal and political safeguarding of the Republic of Cyprus’ EEZ, which is continuously disputed by Turkey, through an approach that offers a larger EEZ to Israel and Egypt. Beyond that, let me remind you of the Republic of Cyprus’ initiative for a humanitarian corridor, implemented due to the support of Israel and Egypt. There are many benefits from this cooperation, which, among other things, highlight the role of the Republic of Cyprus as an EU representative in a region of particular geostrategic importance and as a representative of Middle Eastern countries in Brussels.

“We Sent Aid, But Not Weapons to Ukraine”

M.K.: Has Cyprus sent weapons and money to Ukraine? Have you sought any concessions for participating in the sanctions against Russia, given the costs involved?

N.C.: We are an EU member state, standing on the right side of history concerning Ukraine and acting within the collective decisions of the EU. From the very beginning, we have supported International Law and opposed the violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Specifically, Cyprus, suffering from the consequences of the Turkish invasion and occupation, cannot have any other position. Consequently, Cyprus supports Ukraine by participating in the EU’s restrictive measures against Russia and providing military support to Ukraine through the European Peace Facility and the EU Military Assistance mission, while bilaterally, humanitarian aid worth 4.5 million euros was sent to the Ukrainian people. Cyprus also provides security status to thousands of Ukrainian refugees who have applied for temporary protection.

M.K.: Why do you support Israel, which is accused of war crimes in Gaza? On principle, shouldn’t Cyprus be against it?

N.C.: We do not support Israel. Our approach is clear both regarding the need for a ceasefire and the resolution of the Palestinian issue based on the agreed framework and the decisions of the United Nations Security Council.